planning report PDU/ 0859b/01 19 December 2012 399 Edgware Road/Former Oriental City in the London Borough of Brent planning application no 12/2166
Strategic planning application stage 1 referral (new powers) Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); Greater London Authority Acts 1999 and 2007; Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008
The proposal
A hybrid planning application for the demolition of all existing buildings and structures and comprehensive mixed-use development comprising:
Full planning permission (phase 1) for comprehensive mixed-use development comprising fill planning permission erection of 7,817 sq.m. gross external area (GEA) Class A1 foodstore with associated service and delivery yard; 5,207 sq.m. GEA of New Oriental and Far Eastern Floorspace (OFEF) to include shops, financial and professional services, restaurants and cafes, drinking establishments, hot food takeaways, and non-residential institutions .
Outline planning permission (phase 2 and 3) comprising residential floorspace (class C3, accompanied by illustrative residential accommodation schedule indicating 183 residential units); associated car parking spaces, associated landscaping and new vehicular access from Airco Close (phase 2, all matters reserved) and two form entry primary school and nursery (class D1, all matters reserved). The applicant The applicant is Development Securities, and the agent is Quod.
Strategic issues The main strategic issues are the development of out of centre retail and the provision of affordable housing and a new primary school.
Other issues that need to be addressed before the application is referred back to the mayor at stage two relate to urban design, children’s playspace, inclusive access, climate change mitigation, noise, air quality, employment and training and transport
Recommendation
That Brent Council be advised that while the application is generally acceptable in strategic planning terms the application does not comply with the London Plan, but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 154 of this report could address these deficiencies.
S:\Planning Decisions\Cases\0859b\Stage 1 page 1 Context
1 On 9 November 2012 the Mayor of London received documents from Brent Council notifying him of a planning application of potential strategic importance to develop the above site for the above uses. Under the provisions of The Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor has until 19 December 2012 to provide the Council with a statement setting out whether he considers that the application complies with the London Plan, and his reasons for taking that view. The Mayor may also provide other comments. This report sets out information for the Mayor’s use in deciding what decision to make.
2 The application is referable under Category 1A and 1B of the Schedule to the Order 2008:
1A: Development of more than 150 residential units.
1B(c): Development outside Central London and with a floorspace of more than 15,000 sq.m.
3 Once Brent Council has resolved to determine the application, it is required to refer it back to the Mayor for his decision as to whether to direct refusal; take it over for his own determination; or allow the Council to determine it itself.
4 The environmental information for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 has been taken into account in the consideration of this case.
5 The Mayor of London’s statement on this case will be made available on the GLA website www.london.gov.uk.
Site description
6 The 2.87 hectare site is located on the A5 Edgware road and is occupied by vacant buildings formerly used by Oriental City shopping centre. The site is bounded by ASDA foodstore to the north, Edgware Road to the east, Grove Park the south, and a new housing development to the west.
7 The nearest sections of the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN) are the A406 and the A41 at a distance of 3 and 2 km away respectively. The A5 Edgware Road is part of the Strategic Road Network (SRN). Though this development is wholly within the Borough of Brent, the A5 in this particular location corresponds to the boundary with Barnet. The site is adjacent to the Colindale Opportunity Area.
8 Colindale Underground station is located approximately 800m east of the site, providing services on the Northern Line. There are five bus routes (32, 142, 204, 292 and 303) that operate on the Edgware Road with bus stops directly outside the site. As such, the site records a public transport accessibility level (PTAL) level of 3 (where 6 is the highest and 1 the lowest) which indicates a moderate level of accessibility to and from the site.
Details of the proposal
9 A hybrid planning application for the demolition of all existing buildings and structures and comprehensive mixed-use development comprising:
10 Full planning permission (phase 1) for comprehensive mixed-use development comprising fill planning permission erection of 7,817 sq.m. gross external area (GEA) Class A1 foodstore with associated service and delivery yard; 5,207 sq.m. GEA of New Oriental and Far Eastern Floorspace
S:\Planning Decisions\Cases\0859b\Stage 1 page 2 (OFEF) to include shops, financial and professional services, restaurants and cafes, drinking establishments, hot food takeaways, and non-residential institutions (class A1,A2, A3, A4, A5, B1 and D1); podium slab along Airco Close; a site-wide energy centre; associated car parking spaces; motorcycle parking spaces and cycle parking spaces; associated landscaping and public realm works; new vehicular access from Grove Park and vehicular access from Plaza Walk and associated highway works.
11 Outline planning permission (phase 2 and 3) comprising residential floorspace (class C3, accompanied by illustrative residential accommodation schedule indicating 183 residential units); associated car parking spaces, associated landscaping and new vehicular access from Airco Close (phase 2, all matters reserved) and two form entry primary school and nursery (class D1, all matters reserved). The masterplan layout consists of:
A Morrison Supermarket above a car park adjoined to an Oriental City restaurant with food court at the upper level.
The supermarket will have an entrance atrium to access the store and the Oriental City will have a restaurant and food court entrance both facing onto Edgware Road. Between these two elements is a proposed pedestrian entrance to the customer car park.
Adjoining the supermarket and oriental restaurant/food court is a residential development of apartments and townhouses on a raised platform which include an Asian goods retail mall on the ground floor facing Edgware Road with ground floor residential car park behind.
The raised residential platform is defined by apartment blocks on Edgware Road, Grove Park and the corner of Plaza Walk.
The raised platform block creates what is defined as a home zone of town houses with single aspect units backing onto the supermarket servicing area.
A primary school is to be located on the platform – the site to be developed by Brent Council. This creates a public square in the south of the site with the school entrance defining an edge to the public space.
A wide landscaped pavement area for possible market use on Edgware Road with staircase/ramp link to the raised residential platform and linkage through to Grove Park.
Customer and servicing car access from Plaza Walk and a further customer retail access from Grove Park via an underground link.
Approximately 368 shared car parking spaces for all of the retail on the site.
Approximately 183 private car parking spaces for residential units. Case history
12 The former Mayor initially considered an application for the existing permission on 15 March 2007 (PDU/0859/01) for redevelopment to provide 28,566 sq.m. retail (comprising replacement Oriental City, new DIY store and new furniture store), 520 residential units, 9,832 sq.m. nursery/primary school and health and fitness centre, 1,069 car parking spaces, and associated landscaping and servicing, located in eight blocks, rising to seventeen storeys. Following the Council’s resolution to grant permission, on 1 August 2008 (PDU/0859/02). The
S:\Planning Decisions\Cases\0859b\Stage 1 page 3 former Mayor concluded that he was content for the Council to determine the case themselves and did not direct refusal.
13 On 13 April 2010 the Mayor of London was consulted on the renewal of the existing planning permission, which was referable under categories 1A, 1B 1C and 3F of the Schedule to the Order 2008. Having regard to the Government guidance set out in ‘Greater flexibility for planning permissions’ it did not raise any new strategic planning issues that were not previously considered (PDU/ 0859a/JAC01. Strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance
14 The relevant issues and corresponding policies are as follows:
Economic development London Plan; the Mayor’s Economic Development Strategy; Employment Action Plan Housing London Plan; Housing SPG; Housing Strategy; draft Revised Housing Strategy; Providing for Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation SPG Affordable housing London Plan; Housing SPG; draft Affordable Housing SPG; Housing Strategy; draft Revised Housing Strategy; draft Early Minor Alteration to the London Plan Density London Plan; Housing SPG Urban design London Plan; Mix of uses London Plan Regeneration London Plan; the Mayor’s Economic Development Strategy Transport London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy, Land for Industry and Transport SPG Crossrail London Plan; Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy; Parking London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy Retail/town centre uses London Plan Employment London Plan; Land for Industry and Transport SPG Access London Plan; Accessible London: achieving an inclusive environment SPG; Planning and Access for Disabled People: a good practice guide (ODPM) Culture London Plan; Mayor’s Cultural Strategy Ambient noise London Plan; the Mayor’s Ambient Noise Strategy; Air quality London Plan; the Mayor’s Air Quality Strategy; Education London Plan Sustainable development London Plan; Sustainable Design and Construction SPG; Mayor’s Climate Change Adaptation Strategy; Mayor’s Climate Change Mitigation and Energy Strategy; Mayor’s Water Strategy
15 For the purposes of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the development plan in force for the area is the Brent Core Strategy 2011, the Site Specific Allocations DPD 2011 and the 2011 London Plan.
16 The following are also relevant material considerations: Barnet Council: Collindale Area Action Plan The National Planning Policy Framework and Technical Guide to the National Planning Policy Framework
S:\Planning Decisions\Cases\0859b\Stage 1 page 4 The draft Revised Early Minor Alteration to the London Plan
Principle of development
17 The new hybrid proposal is a mixed-use scheme with the retail use coming forward as a detailed application and the residential including ground floor ancillary retail as an outline application together with the provision of a platform for a 2 form entry primary and nursery school which provides a site to be developed by the Brent Council. The principle of a high density mixed use development of the site is acceptable and is supported by both the Colindale Area Action Plan and Brent Council’s site specific allocations DPD (2011) and is appropriate given the sites proximity to the Colindale/Burnt Oak Opportunity Area. There are however issues to be resolved in relation to the quantum of proposed convenience floorspace proposed in the Morrisons supermarket. Retail
The extant consent and proposed floorspace
18 The applicant acquired the site in 2005 and obtained planning permission on 13 June 2007 (ref.06/1652) and this consent was renewed on 17 June 2010 (ref.10/0775) and expires on 17 June 2013. The extant planning permission is for 28,566 sq.m. of retail floorspace of which:
17,394 sq.m. of “new retail provision” comprising: 6,823 sq.m B & Q min warehouse and 10,979 sq.m. furniture bulky goods
Class A1-A5; B1; D1 and D2 Uses (Oriental City): 10,767 sq.m.
19 The extant consent has been validated by a Lawful Development Certificate (dated 19 December 2011).
20 The retail element of the new application seeks to revise the proposals to provide:
7,817 sq.m. GEA Morrisons foodstore (A1 convenience retail) with a sales area of 3,754 sq.m.
5,207 sq.m. GEA of Oriental Far Eastern Food (OFEF) retail floorspace.
Policy considerations
21 In considering the retail aspects of this application the NPPF and London Plan provide the strategic guidance and borough core strategies offer borough and site specific guidance on the assessment of the development proposals.
The London Plan
22 London Plan policy 2.15 (Town Centres) policy 4.7 (retail & town centre development) and policy 4.8 (supporting a successful & diverse retail sector) are all relevant to the retail aspects of this application Specifically, policy 4.7 (retail and town centre development) states that: in taking planning decisions on proposed retail and town centre development, the following principles should be applied: a the scale of retail, commercial, culture and leisure development should be related to the size, role and function of a town centre and its catchment.
S:\Planning Decisions\Cases\0859b\Stage 1 page 5 b retail, commercial, culture and leisure development should be focused on sites within town centres, or if no in-centre sites are available, on sites on the edges of centres that are, or can be, well integrated with the existing centre and public transport. c proposals for new, or extensions to existing, edge or out of centre development will be subject to an assessment of impact (retail impact assessment).
23 London Plan Policy 2.7 ‘Outer London economy’ states that boroughs should be “f) identifying and bringing capacity in and around town centres with good public transport accessibility to accommodate leisure, retail and civic needs and higher density housing”.
National Planning Policy Framework
24 The national planning policy guidance for retail, leisure and entertainment, offices, arts, culture and tourism and other main town centre uses is provided by the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The NPPF in relation to out of centre retail proposals such as that being proposed at Former Oriental City/399 Edgware Road states:
(Paragraph 24) Local planning authorities should apply a sequential test to planning applications for main town centre uses that are not in an existing centre and are not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan. They should require applications for main town centre uses to be located in town centres, then in edge of centre locations and only if suitable sites are not available should out of centre sites be considered. When considering edge of centre and out of centre proposals, preference should be given to accessible sites that are well connected to the town centre. Applicants and local planning authorities should demonstrate flexibility on issues such as format and scale.
(Paragraph 26) When assessing applications for retail, leisure and office development outside of town centres, which are not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan, local planning authorities should require an impact assessment if the development is over a proportionate, locally set floorspace threshold (if there is no locally set threshold, the default threshold is 2,500 sq m). This should include assessment of:
the impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private investment in a centre or centres in the catchment area of the proposal; and
the impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including local consumer choice and trade in the town centre and wider area, up to five years from the time the application is made. For major schemes where the full impact will not be realised in five years, the impact should also be assessed up to ten years from the time the application is made.
(Paragraph 27) Where an application fails to satisfy the sequential test or is likely to have significant adverse impact on one or more of the above factors, it should be refused.
25 The NPPF requires that sites are suitable, available and viable and are assessed in the following order:
Locations in appropriate existing centres where sites or buildings for conversion are, or are likely to become, available within the plan period;
S:\Planning Decisions\Cases\0859b\Stage 1 page 6 Edge-of-centre locations, with preference given to sites that are or will be well connected to the centre; and
Out-of-centre sites, with preference given to sites which are or will be well served by a choice of means of transport and which are closest to the centre and have a higher likelihood of forming links with the centre.
The applicant’s retail impact assessment
26 The applicant has completed a retail impact assessment (RIA) as requested at the pre- application stage and this is welcome as it provides a perspective on the potential justification for the proposed additional retail floorspace. Although the RIA demonstrates that the applicant has engaged with Brent Council on the methodology and parameters of the study, they have not fully responded to the request at the pre-application stage to further engage with the adjacent Council’s of Barnet and Harrow. This has led to a number of issues arising over the thoroughness and robustness of the RIA that need to be resolved from the perspective of both the applicant and the Boroughs.
27 The key conclusions of the assessment from the applicant perspective are that there is potential future capacity to allow for a new food store at the Former Oriental City/399 Edgware Road. With overall capacity for two food stores; the sequential assessment demonstrates there are no sequentially preferable sites and therefore the site is the only deliverable site in the defined retail catchment; the impact on the viability and vitality of the existing retail network hierarchy would be minimal in context of existing centres being assessed as being vital and viable.
Expenditure growth & capacity
28 The applicant has provided an additional statement to the RIA which states that further evaluation of the RIA by the applicant demonstrates that taking the Asda (Capitol Way), Morrisons (Queensbury) and Sainsburys (Hyde) supermarkets alone, the level of overtrading would total £47.06m at forecast year. This figure combined with expected expenditure growth at forecast year would provide £58.39 of available expenditure, which would support the proposed Morrisons store along with a further large food store. Overall they take the view there is more than sufficient retail expenditure growth in the defined catchment to support a range of retailing provision. This interpretation has been questioned by Barnet Council.
Sequential test
29 The site at 399 Edgware Road/ Former Oriental City is identified as being out of centre and this is recognised by the applicant. The sequential test in the RIA includes an assessment of 26 alternative sites across the defined centre hierarchy of Burnt Oak, Edgware, Hendon Central, Mill Hill, Colindale, Hendon Brent Street and Kingsbury. In completing this review none of the following identified sites were assessed as being suitable, viable or deliverable:
Burnt Oak: 3 -5 Burnt Oak Broadway; East Road; Watling Avenue; Capitol Way and Greenpoint.
Edgware: Broadwalk Shopping Centre car park; former Edgware Town FC; Lidl car park, vacant former Railway Public House; Edgware Bus Station; Forumside, High Street; car park Station Road.
Hendon Central: St Mary’s Primary School.
Mill Hill: Mill Hill Broadway station car park.
S:\Planning Decisions\Cases\0859b\Stage 1 page 7 Collindale: Lexus, Edgware Road; Sarena House; Volvo Edgware Road; McDonald’s Edgware Road; Volkswagen McDonald’s Edgware Road; Zenith House.
Hendon: Brent Street – Bell Vue Road.
Kingsbury: 1-3 The Mall; allotment, Ruskin Gardens; allotment, Ruskin Gardens (2); Roe Green Park; Aldi car park and TA Honeypot Lane.
Retail health check: vitality and viability
30 The applicant’s RIA has undertaken a health check of the main town centres within their defined primary catchment area and this concludes the following:
Edgware: healthy vacancy rate and resilient to change.
Burnt Oak: vital and viable
Colindale: vital and viable
Kingsbury: vital and viable
Mill Hill: contains a number of independent stores and Marks & Spencer simply food is main convenience provision. No information on vacancy rates.
Brent Street: few vacant units but not widely spread.
Hendon Central: equal proportion of comparison and convenience floorspace with two supermarkets. No information on vacancy rates.
Common ground
31 The retail impact assessment has a number of issues that can be agreed between the applicant, Brent and Barnet Councils. The definition of the retail catchment area of the proposed store was agreed with Brent Council, so the primary data collection is accepted. The existing Morrison’s store is over trading and there is data that demonstrates that this is the case. The site is designated within policy documents for a mixed-use development that encourages a quantum of retail floorspace. There is an extant consent that allows for mixed-use development including retail use for oriental and Eastern origin goods, comparison goods and a quantum of convenience floorspace. A certificate of lawfulness has been issued that verifies the extant consent. The Oriental foodcourt and related goods proportion of the development is accepted by Brent and Barnet Councils.
Retail assessment issues
32 Since the pre-application discussions there are a number of issues that have arisen in relation to the Morrison’s supermarket convenience floorspace. The applicant and the boroughs have taken differing perspectives on these issues and the validity of the presented arguments, these argument can be summarised as follows:
How the extant consent is interpreted;
How the certificate of lawfulness is interpreted;
S:\Planning Decisions\Cases\0859b\Stage 1 page 8 The thoroughness and accuracy of the findings of the sequential test;
The thoroughness and accuracy of the findings of the assessment of impact on the viability and vitality of the existing network of town centres; and
The thoroughness and accuracy of the findings on the assessment of impact on proposed development within the retail network and regeneration areas.
Status of the consent
33 The interpretation and status of the extant permission is an issue of contention between the applicant and Brent/Barnet Councils and has implications for the strategic decision making process. This needs to be clarified by the respective Local Planning Authorities before further consequential planning decision is taken.
Certificates of lawfulness
34 Barnet Council and Brent Council both have a different interpretation to the applicant. The position is taken that the development is subject to condition that restricts the retail elements of the former Oriental City site to “the display and sale of goods of mainly oriental and eastern origin.”
35 The 2011 certificate establishes that 33% of quantum of oriental and Far Eastern origin (OFEO) retail floorspace can be treated as unrestricted open A1 use class. The applicant planning statement implies this means 3,089 sq.m. gross has open A1 consent. The boroughs argue that this interpretation is incorrect, rather than confirm a particular quantum of floorspace, the certificate relates to a proportion of floorspace and specifically confirming 66% of the existing floorspace is the minimum amount that would need to be devoted to goods of mainly oriental and Far Eastern origin (OFEO). Furthermore the unrestricted 33% of retail floorspace cannot be operated independently of other OFEO floorspace as the desegregation of floorspace is in contravention of the restrictions imposed, as it is ancillary to the main OFEO floorspace.
36 The applicant takes the view that the Council’s interpretation is incorrect and that it has sufficient open A1 floorsapce to allow for the development of the Morrisons store.
Extant permission
37 The applicant’s view is that the conditions of the extant planning permission do not restrict the approved B&Q unit to bulky comparison goods and allows for all of the 6,823 sq.m of the permitted furniture store retail floorspace to trade with an open A1 retail use. Brent and Barnet Councils take the view that the applicant’s interpretation of the extant permission in its planning statement is incorrect as no certificate of lawfulness has been obtained to confirm this view and the condition which states “the premises shown to be used for the sale of bulky goods” mean that 6,823 sq.m. of unrestricted use class A1 retail does not exist under the extant consent.
38 Furthermore, Barnet has noted that the extant consent has not been implemented and is undeliverable in its extant form based on information from the applicant’s planning statement. It is not considered that the previous consent creates a fall back position that allows for a quantum of A1 retail use at the site.
39 The applicant has responded to this issue by stating that in respect to the extant consent basic planning law recognises that the extant permission enables unrestricted floorspace of 6,823
S:\Planning Decisions\Cases\0859b\Stage 1 page 9 sq.m. and further certificate is unnecessary . It agrees the bulky goods condition exists on the permission, but not on Brent and Barnet Councils interpretation of the wording.
Impact, capacity and sequential test issues
40 As already stated, at the pre-application it was requested that the applicant engage with adjacent boroughs in completing the RIA and ensure the strategic impact of the proposals are thoroughly explored. The adjacent borough of Barnet has since objected to the application on the basis of insufficient expenditure growth to support additional capacity, the thoroughness of the RIA and the sequential test and the impact of development on the viability and vitality on the retail network of centres. Particular attention has been drawn to these issues in three locations Burnt Oak, Edgware and Colindale.
Burnt Oak
41 The issue is that the RIA has failed to assess Burnt Oak accurately in terms of assessment of impact/ trade diversion, viability and vitality of the centre and sequential site assessment.
42 Barnet Council claim the trade diversion figure for Burnt Oak is underestimated and does not fully account for the under trading of the existing Tesco Metro store which is assessed at trading at 71% of capacity. The applicant’s proposal would have a disproportionate impact on the anchor store and in turn the viability and vitality of the existing centre. Furthermore The Barnet Core Strategy identifies that the centre is under performing.
43 Particular attention is given to the thoroughness and accuracy of the sequential site assessment of the Watling Avenue site in Burnt Oak within the applicant’s assessment. Barnet Council take the position that the site is supported by Core Strategy policy and NPPF because it is sequentially preferable because of the town centre location, will generate sustainable shopping patterns and its development will enhance town centre viability and vitality. They furthermore state that it can be delivered in appropriate timescales.
44 In response the applicant has defended the RIA sequential assessment of Burnt Oak and in particular the Watling Avenue site. It has drawn attention to the site delivery and in particular in relation to flood risk mitigation which has been an on going issue between Barnet Council and the Environment Agency going back over 12 years of negotiation and discussion. Further issues to be resolved are identified as ecological impact, flood risk mitigation, clarity of finalised proposals, land ownership and completion of purchase of adjoining sites, financial viability, relocation of Watling Street market, absence of a planning permission and conservation area consent.
Edgware town centre
45 Barnet Council claim the RIA underestimates the impact on Edgware town centre and that the sequential test dismissal of the centre sites as not being appropriate for development is incorrect. The applicant’s proposals could have impact on the future of the centres development that is identified in the Barnet Core Strategy as being a focus for growth.
46 Particular attention is drawn to RIA trade diversion impact that according to Barnet Council, is questionable. This is because the extant consent application identified a trade impact of 9.8% (2016). Whilst the new foodstore proposals in the current application estimate the trade draw impact will be lower at 4.9% (2016).
47 In response the applicant has defended the RIA sequential assessment of the Boardwalk Shopping Centre as the site could not meet the retail needs of the catchment and delivery issues render the site unviable and unsuitable.
S:\Planning Decisions\Cases\0859b\Stage 1 page 10 Colindale AAP
48 The Colindale AAP seeks to coordinate the regeneration of the area and has an identified quantum of 2,500 sq.m. of convenience retail floorspace supported by shops and services . Barnet Council argues that the proposals would impact on sustainable retail floorspace coming forward and adversely affect potential investment. The RIA has failed to sufficiently account for impacts on the Colindale AAP. The applicant differs in the interpretation of impacts on Colindale. It also needs to be considered that significant growth has occurred in the Colindale opportunity area and that growth is likely to continue over the next 15 years.
Conclusion and recommendations
49 Whilst there are many positive elements with the proposals, the impact of the proposals on the retail development potential of sites in Burnt Oak and Edgware which are retail centres in the network the London Plan town centre classification (table A2.1) and the issues of potential impact on the Colindale AAP proposals require further exploration. This raises strategic planning concerns in terms of both the sequential test (London Plan policy 4.7 B (b)) and impact on town centre vitality and viability (London Plan policy 2.15 C and 4.7B (c)).
50 It is therefore suggested that the applicant engage pro-actively with the Council’s of Brent and Barnet to resolve the issue in relation to the interpretation of the Lawful Development Certificate and the extant consent. This process should also explore the assumption presented by the applicant that there is sufficient expenditure growth to accommodate two stores in the catchment without damaging existing and emerging capacity further investigation. If there is no agreement on this assumption, the applicant should agree to re-model the RIA to account for accommodating two retail stores in the retail catchment.
51 The applicant should further explore the relationship between the quantum of floorspace and the impact on the town centre hierarchy and provide further supporting evidence on the sequential test impact on vitality and viability of the existing retail hierarchy especially in relation to the sites identified in Barnet. Furthermore, in undertaking this process Barnet Council are required to provide further evidence on the deliverability of the town centre sites identified in Burnt Oak and Edgware.
Primary school and nursery
52 Following validation of the planning application and review of the pre-application public consultation exercise the applicant has included a two form entry primary School and Nursery. This is included in lieu of affordable housing provision replicating the agreed approach adopted in the existing consent.
53 The inclusion of a site for a primary school and nursery is welcome as it was an essential element of the extant consent and was an important part of the pre-application discussions. It will also respond to a London wide and Brent specific need for nursery and school provision and on a site identified by Brent Council in its strategic development sites DPD. It is further supported by London Plan policy 3.18 education facilities. The commitment to providing the platform for the school building should be secured within the s106 agreement. Housing mix
54 The application is for approximately 183 residential units, reduced from the originally submitted proposal without the school of 223 residential units. The revised with school application
S:\Planning Decisions\Cases\0859b\Stage 1 page 11 will have the following provisional housing mix (figure 1) which allows for 40% larger three-four bed units. This element of the proposal is an outline application.
Figure 1: Proposed housing mix
Illustrative residential accommodation schedule Original % Revised % 1B2P 84 38% 58 31% 2B3P 7 3% 7 4% 2B4P 52 23% 46 25% 3B5P 65 29% 60 33% 4B7P 15 7% 12 7% Total units 223 100% 183 100%
55 The proposed mix of units is substantially lower than the extant consent which is for 520 units compared to the proposed 183 units. This is accepted given the improved density, current market conditions and inclusion of the school. The overall unit size mix of the new proposals is a substantial improvement on the extant consent and this is welcome. As this housing mix is for an outline scheme, the mix should be secured within the s106 agreement and not to be approved through reserved matters. Affordable Housing
56 The inclusion in the development proposals of land for a 2 form entry primary and nursery school, as with the extant consent, has had implications for the provision of affordable housing within the development proposals. The application no longer contains affordable housing with the location of this component now occupied by the school building. It is noted the extant consent still allowed for a 5% affordable housing contribution.
57 The absence of any affordable housing provision maybe acceptable subject to Brent Council verifying through independent evaluation the findings of the applicant’s viability assessment. Play space provision
58 In response to policy 3.6 of the London Plan the applicant has completed an estimate of the child population of the housing development and has set out how children’s play space is integrated with the layout proposal.
59 It has identified a need to provide for 400 sq.m. of playspace based on a child yield of 40 children. The on-site play provision will be in the form of public realm, community amenity space, playspace and private gardens. The homezone cul-de-sac and lawn area is estimated to provide 1.002 sq.m. of playable hard and soft landscaping focused door step play. Provision for older children will be met off-site by the existing facilities at Grove Park and Montrose playing fields. The approach to the provision of playspace is generally acceptable, but the applicant should engage with Brent Council on potential contribution to improving existing local play facilities.
Urban Design
60 The applicant has provided sufficient detail to insure that the quality of design is deliverable and this is welcome. The design quality is clear through design coding and parameter plans provided. Design quality should be secured through the s106 agreement, particularly in relation to compliance with GLA housing space standards.
S:\Planning Decisions\Cases\0859b\Stage 1 page 12 Principle and layout
61 The layout allows for the supermarket and Asian restaurant and food court to provide an active street frontage to the car parking and residential development with shop frontages to Edgware Road. Overall this division of use and the relationship between retail and residential uses has been done effectively and allows for a strong integration of these elements.
62 The design proposals integrate a primary school and nursery masterplan facing Grove Park Road turning the corner into the development. This is a welcome addition to this iteration of the masterplan as its inclusion was requested at the pre-application stage.
63 The residential layout involves a perimeter of apartment blocks (with an active frontage to Edgware Road) with an interior containing town houses, this approach provides an effective design solution to the urban block form. Since the pre-application stage the applicant has provided further detail on the transition between the taller elements and the town houses in the design coding/parameter plans and the overall quality of the internal public realm landscaping appears potential good and this is welcome.
64 The setting back of the building line is welcome as it enhances this part of the Edgware Road environment. Since the pre-application stage further detail on the quality of streetscape in terms of preferred materials and landscape treatment has been provided giving assurance to the adopted approach. The east/west pedestrian route from the internal street from the park is welcomed as it increases permeability between the park and Edgware Road. The addition of the school provides a strong hinge point between the park and the road.
Ramped access
65 At the pre-application stage the stepped and ramped access from Edgware Road that creates a link onto the residential podium through to Airco Close was discussed. Whilst this feature aids with the permeability of the proposals, assurance was required on the practicality of the design for prams/wheelchair users. There are still issues with this aspect of the layout and the applicant should respond to paragraphs 82 - 93 of the access section
Scale and massing
66 The scale and massing provides a suitable solution to the site development and the changes in scale offer a good variety to the appearance of the scheme and its setting in the street. At the pre-application stage further information and justification was requested regarding the scale and relationship between the town house development and the surrounding apartment development. This information has now been provided in the design & access statement both illustrating and explaining this aspect of development.
67 The amended scheme with the inclusion of land for school has altered the massing of the development onto Airco Close creating a new public square. This arrangement creates a defined public space with an appropriate scale of buildings defining the space and is supported.
Appearance and landscaping
68 The supermarket diagrid facade treatment provides an interesting design solution that breaks up the bulky massing of the store and gives the individuality to the development which is welcome. The one (minor) point of concern is the treatment of the ground floor, front-facing facade between the two main store entrances, where the car park pedestrian entrance is located. It
S:\Planning Decisions\Cases\0859b\Stage 1 page 13 is suggested a design solution (such as public art screens) should be used to enhance the appearance of this gap.
69 There is no objection to brickwork being the primary material treatment on the flats as there is sufficient variety in the detailed facade treatment to bring richness to the design. At the pre-application stage concern was raised on the treatment of some side elevations which require additional detail to avoid large brick areas. The applicant has revised its design & access statement and addressed a number of the blank elevations and has reasonably met the concerns raised.
70 The quality of brick used as the primary material should be of high quality and this should be secured by condition including on site sample panels for inspection prior to construction.
71 The applicant at the pre-application stage was requested to confirm that there is sufficient clearance for tree root balls in the internal street landscaping treatment. The information provided gives sufficient assurance.
Primary school & nursery
72 The applicant’s design & access statement presents development options for the primary school and nursery building. The chosen solution is considered the most appropriate with the proposed location on the south-western edge of the masterplan, with the school building accommodated on an extended podium over the service area/car park of the supermarket. The site area is secured in the parameter plans and is supported.
Residential quality and character of internal streets
73 At the pre-application stage concern was raised over the capacity of the proposals to accommodate residential units that were compliant with the London Plan space standards and requirements of the housing design guide. The applicant has provided a masterplan design code and parameter plans which demonstrate that the development form in the outline application will allow for the size of units that are compliant with London Plan housing space standards and meet the requirements of the guide. The applicant should agree to secure this commitment to GLA space standards in the s106 agreement.
74 At the pre-application stage concerns were raised in relation to housing quality and the applicant was requested to review residential layout to minimise the proportion of single-aspect flats, especially where they are north-facing units or in high noise impact locations. The applicant has provided indicative layouts and parameter plans that demonstrate a scheme that is responsive to London Housing Design Guide and minimise single aspect units.
75 The masterplan has included private amenity space in the townhouses in the form of private back gardens and the houses arranged along the southern supermarket wall incorporate roof top terraces. The applicant has also included amenity space for the apartment block residents in the form of balconies and terraces and this is welcome. However given concerns raised by the noise assessment a solution adopting “winter gardens” would be preferable to improve the acoustic quality of the apartments in high noise locations.
76 At the pre-application stage the apartment blocks were said to have incorporated roof top terraces; these are not evident in the design coding or indicative layouts. The parameter plans/design coding in the design and access statement should provide the location and indicative parameters of the levels of space to be provided and this should be secured as a condition.
77 At the pre-application stage the applicant was requested to demonstrate that overshadowing will not be an issue on the internal streets given that they are surrounded by the
S:\Planning Decisions\Cases\0859b\Stage 1 page 14 higher massing of the apartment blocks. The design & access statement provides a section showing how the outline stage parameter plans allow for the apartment blocks to be set back. This would reduce visual intrusion and sufficient width is given to the mews form street to allow for sunlight penetration.
78 At the pre-application stage the inclusion of defensible space at front of the residential units was welcome as it enhances the public realm as well as having a functional purpose. It was requested that the parameter plans should set out minimum/ maximum size of this defensible space, this element has been included in the parameter plans.
79 At the pre-application stage the termination of the cul-de-sac of the southernmost internal street required consideration and in particular the transition between the apartments and housing. Furthermore the frontage of ground floor treatment of this part of the layout required either additional planting or an entrance to the apartment. The applicant has responded to these concerns in their design & access statement.
80 The outline indicative masterplan shows that the location of flat core entrances is both from external streets, as well as internal streets and this is welcome. At the pre-application stage the entrance to block B appeared to be hidden and required revision to respond to the street and courtyard in the same manner as the other entrances. This issue has been addressed in the revised outline plan and demonstrates and it is feasible to achieve the required solution within the parameter plans.
81 At the pre-application stage attention was drawn to how the layout sets back the development onto a raised frontage to Airco Close/ Plaza Walk with a landscaped edge and path. It was felt this entrance required a stronger defining feature to Grove Park. The modified proposals with the school now incorporate a public square which mitigates these concerns as it offers hinge point from the home zone to the park. Access
Public realm and spaces
82 The design of the scheme has created significant level change between Edgware Road and the internal streets.
83 The solution to overcome this involves 14 ramp stages at gradients of 1:20. This means that someone who requires level access would have to travel approximately three and a half times the distance of someone who does not. This is a significant design issue as the level access route may actually be too tiring for some people who require level access to use. It is also not clear how the design features to the steps would work in conjunction with the ramp/ slope landings i.e. tactile paving and handrail extensions. Conflicts between user groups could occur, and the step and ramp landings could end up quite congested with people at busy times. One of the plans shows a tapering step to the bottom of the lowest ramp stage, which would mean that level access, is not provided into the ramps anyway. It is also not entirely clear from the plans whether the proposed ramps are also wide enough. The usability of the proposals is therefore questionable.
84 The latest design guidance on external ramps and slopes (BS8300:2009 + A1:2010 5.8.2 and Approved Document M of the Building Regulations) also state that: “No individual flight of a ramp should have a going of more than 10m or a rise of more than 500mm. If a series of ramp flights rises more than 2m, an alternative means of step-free access, such as an enclosed lift, protected from the weather, should be provided.”
S:\Planning Decisions\Cases\0859b\Stage 1 page 15 85 This guidance classifies a 1:20 gradient as a ramp (Table 1), and the applicant should therefore provide as a minimum (in addition to the ramped option) a lift alternative. There are drawbacks of relying on mechanical lifting devices to provide level access as they can break down, which is why it should be provided in addition to the proposals.
86 Ideally the level change between the Edgware Road level and the upper residential and school entrance level should be designed out of the scheme. If this is not possible, a lift should be provided to overcome the significant level change which is being created.
87 All external steps should be designed in accordance with the latest design guidance on steps which comes in the form of BS8300:2009 + A1:2010 5.9 and 5.10. They should be designed with the correct dimensions, level landings, handrails, handrail extensions, contrast nosings and correctly positioned hazard warning tactile paving. BS8300:2009 + A1:20105.9.2 states that: “The rise and going of each step within a flight, and preferably between a series of slights, should be uniform.” The tapering steps should therefore not be used.
88 Tapering steps which taper into a ramp or sloped pedestrian route should not be used (such as they are illustrated around ‘The Hyde substation’ on the proposals), as such an arrangement can cause problems for users of the steps, and the ramp or slope. There are also concerns regarding the level access from Edgware Road up to the new retail entrances, the gradients which would be required, and the cross fall gradients which would be produced for people (depending on which way they are travelling). The level access routes often seem to deviate away from the buildings, increasing peoples travelling distances and decreasing convenience for those people.
89 The changes in paving tone i.e. darker strips could be confusing for some, including blind and partially sighted people, who may interpret them as a change in level. The applicant should look into this, seek advice, and ensure that this will not be a problem for user groups who could potentially be affected by this.
90 The pavement to the development side of Grove Park appears to have a slope or ramp should not be introduced to it (again, with tapering steps off it). The development to impact on the convenience and accessibility of pedestrian arrangements around the edge of the site.
91 External seating should provide choice for people and a variety of users with differing needs. Some of the seating should therefore incorporate back rests and arm rests, and the applicant should provide further information regarding the design and location of this.
92 Page 31 of the Design and Access Statement shows an image ‘perspective showing possible retail kiosks along Edgware Road frontage’. The kiosk illustrated has a ramp up to the front entrance, and unguarded tapering step off the side of the ramp, and a higher internal finished floor level to the kiosk when compared with the external levels. It should be ensured that the external arrangements are designed to enable any future possible kiosks to have level access (flat and level, not ramped) provided into them, in accordance with Policy 7.2 ‘Inclusive Design’. The development should be future proofed at this stage.
93 Overall the current external landscaping proposals do not represent the ‘highest level of inclusive and accessible design’.
Car parking
94 The retail parking arrangements appear to have been well planned. Disabled persons parking bays are well located, provide protection for users via the rear hatching positioning etc. The only concern being the future proofing of the parking proposals to the retail use. Table 6.2 of the London Plan provides guidance on car parking standards. For shopping, recreation and leisure
S:\Planning Decisions\Cases\0859b\Stage 1 page 16 facilities the table states that one space should be provided from the outset for each employee who is a disabled motorist, if this figure is known (it is appreciated it may not be), it should be incorporated into the proposals. The table then explains that 6% of the total capacity of parking bays should be provided for visiting disabled motorists- which is reflected in the plans. However, the table goes onto state, under the heading of ‘future provision’ that a further 4% of the total capacity should be provided as ‘enlarged standard spaces’, which are defined as “enlarged standard space 3.6m wide by 6m long that can be adapted to be parking spaces designated for use by disable people to reflect changes in local population needs and allow for flexibility of provision in the future.” The applicant should therefore show how they will be satisfying this requirement within the retail car parking offer.
95 It is recommended that some of the disabled persons parking bays incorporate a 2.6m vertical clearance both to it and for the area of the parking bay (please see BS83000 (2009 and 2012)). This requirement could be accommodated externally if it is not possible to provide this internally.
96 The pedestrian arrangements within the car park involve crossing points and pedestrian routes being provided, which is excellent. The DfTs ‘Guidance on the use of tactile paving’ should be followed as far as possible to ensure a navigable and safe pedestrian environment is created.
97 Disabled persons parking should also be provided for the school use, as it is understood that this aspect of the school proposals are detailed in full under this application.
School design
98 The outline aspects of this application should commit to inclusive and accessible design principles from the outset, to ensure that they achieve the highest standards. The school should take into account access for disabled pupils and staff in its design; both internally and externally. At least one full passenger lift should be provided, disabled persons toilets for staff and pupils should be provided.
Residential design
99 The residential aspect of this development should also satisfy the London Plan policies in terms of accessible residential accommodation. In line with London Plan Policy 3.8 Housing Choice the applicant should demonstrate that the design of the residential units meet the 16 Lifetime Home standards (see the Quality and Design Standards in the Mayor’s Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘Housing’), and that the 10% of new housing is wheelchair accessible and meet the standards set out in Annex 2 Best Practice Guidance for Wheelchair Accessible Housing, of the GLA's Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘Housing’ (see http://www.london.gov.uk/sites /default/files/Housing-SPG-highres.pdf.) Typical flat layouts and plans of the wheelchair accessible homes and the Lifetime Homes units should be included in the design and access statement to illustrate the relevant features. It should be clear on the plans where the wheelchair accessible flats are located and how many there are. These should be distributed across tenure types and flat sizes to give disabled and older people similar choices to non disabled people (unless the council through their Accessible Housing Register work can advise on the need in this part of the borough for a particular size of wheelchair accessible unit). The checklist in the GLA’s best practice guide provides a useful reference for ensuring that the key features of wheelchair accessible homes have been addressed. Generous use of space and careful layout can help to ensure that more than the minimum number of homes are easily adaptable helping to provide greater choice for people who use a wheelchair or who benefit from a wheelchair accessible flat (such as older people who also have mobility equipment storage needs and benefit from level access showers).
S:\Planning Decisions\Cases\0859b\Stage 1 page 17 100 The provision and future management of the blue badge parking bays for the residential development should be in line with the advice in the Lifetime Homes standards and the Wheelchair Housing Design Guide (i.e. one bay per wheelchair accessible dwelling), and these bays should be located as close as possible to the relevant entrances/ cores. Whilst the parking management plan should include a mechanism to ensure that the supply and demand of the blue badge bays are regularly monitored and provision reviewed, to ensure that provision equates to the demand from disabled residents and visitors and that the bays are effectively enforced.
101 If the wheelchair accessible units are to be ‘easily adaptable’ rather than ‘kitted out’ as wheelchair accessible from the outset, it may be acceptable to have some of the parking bays associated with these flats large enough to be used as or marked up as disabled persons parking bays if required at a later date, and the management of these bays (to ensure that they are available at a later date) should be highlighted in the parking management plan.
Action or further information
102 The external arrangements, levels, and landscaping details require further attention and confirmation on the ‘future proofing’ of the retail parking should be provided. Sustainable energy
103 The applicant has broadly followed the energy hierarchy to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and sufficient information has been provided to understand the proposals as a whole. Further revisions and information is required before the proposals can be considered acceptable and the CO2 savings verified
Be Lean - energy efficiency standards
104 A range of passive design features and demand reduction measures are proposed to reduce the CO2 emissions of the proposed development. Both air permeability and heat loss parameters will be improved beyond the minimum backstop values required by building regulations. Other features include mechanical ventilation heat recovery (MVHR) and high efficacy lighting for the residential units and a building energy management system (BEMS) for the non-residential areas. The demand for cooling will be minimised through solar control glazing and cross ventilation.
105 Based on the information provided, the proposed development does not appear to achieve any CO2 savings from energy efficiency alone compared to a 2010 Building Regulations compliant development.
106 The applicant should model additional energy efficiency measures and commit to the development improving on the 2010 Building Regulations compliance level through energy efficiency alone.
Be clean - district heating
107 The applicant has carried out an investigation and there are no existing or planned district heating networks within the vicinity of the proposed development. The applicant should, however, provide a commitment to ensuring that the development is designed to allow future connection to a district heating network should one become available.
108 The applicant is proposing to install a site heat network. However, the applicant should confirm that all apartments and non-domestic building uses will be connected to the site heat network. A drawing showing the route of the heat network linking all buildings on the site should be provided.
S:\Planning Decisions\Cases\0859b\Stage 1 page 18 109 The site heat network will be supplied from a single energy centre. Further information on the floor area and location of the energy centre should be provided.
Combined Heat and Power (CHP)
110 For Option 2 the applicant is proposing to install a 228 kWe gas fired CHP unit as the lead heat source for the site heat network. The CHP is sized to provide the domestic hot water load, as well as a proportion of the space heating. A reduction in regulated CO2 emissions of 146 tonnes per annum (25%) will be achieved through this second part of the energy hierarchy (see table below).
Be green - renewable energy technologies
111 The applicant has submitted two options theses are set out below with comments on the different approaches.
Option 1
112 The applicant has investigated the feasibility of a range of renewable energy technologies and is proposing to install either a 750 kW air source heat pump (ASHP) utilising waste heat from the supermarket’s refrigeration system as the lead heat source for the site heat network. In addition, 250 sq.m. of solar photovoltaic (PV) panels will be also installed. A drawing showing the location and orientation of PV panels should be provided.
113 A reduction in regulated CO2 emissions of 146 tonnes per annum (25%) will be achieved through this third element of the energy hierarchy (see table below) for this option.
Option 2
114 The applicant has investigated the feasibility of a range of renewable energy technologies but is not proposing to install any renewable energy technology for the development for this option.
Overall carbon dioxide savings
115 Based on the energy assessment submitted at stage I, the tables below shows the residual CO2 emissions after each stage of the energy hierarchy and the CO2 emission reductions at each stage of the energy hierarchy.
Tables: CO2 emission reductions from application of the energy hierarchy options:
Option 1 - Air source heat pump with waste heat from supermarket
Total residual Regulated CO2 emissions regulated CO2 reductions emissions (tonnes per (tonnes per (per annum) annum) cent) Baseline i.e. 2010 Building 582 Regulations Energy Efficiency 582 0 0 CHP 452 0 0 Renewable energy (ASHP & Solar PV) 436 146 25 146 25
S:\Planning Decisions\Cases\0859b\Stage 1 page 19 Option 2 – CHP only
Total residual Regulated CO2 emissions regulated CO2 reductions emissions (tonnes per (tonnes per (per annum) annum) cent) Baseline i.e. 2010 Building 582 Regulations Energy Efficiency 582 0 0 CHP 436 146 25 Renewable energy 436 0 0 146 25
116 For each of Options 1 & 2 a reduction of 146 tonnes of CO2 per year in regulated emissions compared to a 2010 Building Regulations compliant development is expected, equivalent to an overall saving of 25%.
117 In addition to incorporating future energy efficiency measures the development should provide CHP and some renewable technology which are required under policy 5.7and 5.8. Noise and air quality assessment
118 The applicant has supplied an air quality and noise assessment and has indicated that these factors have contributed to the design rationale of the development in terms of massing and built form. GLA believe this is a positive aspect of the proposal and any future amendments to the overall design should continue to factor both air quality and noise assessment into the overall built form in keeping with London Plan policy 7.14 improving air quality and policy 7.15 reducing noise and enhancing soundscapes.
Noise Mitigation
119 At the pre-application stage was requested to submit a noise assessment, with particular focus on ensuring that there are no north facing single aspect units that could be exposed to NEC C or D in the masterplan and amendments should be made where necessary. The applicant has submitted a noise assessment and this is welcome.
120 The noise survey was carried out by the deployment of attended measurements on 22 March 2012 and 31 May 2012. The measurement periods are 3 hours for two of the daytime measurement locations and the rest of measurement location approximately one hour.
121 The scope of noise survey is considered to be inadequate to support the planning application. The noise survey should be sufficient to fully characterise the acoustic environment of the site, particularly at the location of the proposed residential development and the primary school. It is recommended that at least a 24 hour survey should be undertaken, and perhaps longer if deemed necessary by the Council in the light of local knowledge.
122 The scope of noise assessment is considered to be adequate to support the planning application for Phase 1. However, it should be noted that the mitigation of noise impact from the Phase 1 development is very much dependent on the building design of the Phase 2 and 3 developments, which are only outline applications at this stage. An appropriate design that provides mitigation should be secured as defined by BS8233.
S:\Planning Decisions\Cases\0859b\Stage 1 page 20
123 The balconies overlooking Edgware Road and Grove Park will exceed the guidance levels in BS8233. The incorporation of balconies is a positive feature, and the difficulty in providing them in noisy urban environments is acknowledged. However Brent Council should consider the need for ‘winter gardens’ as an alternative.
124 The noise assessment addendum assesses the suitability of part of the site for a primary school. Section 9.2.1 states that “Internal noise levels in classrooms have been assessed with reference to British Standard 8233 'Sound insulation and noise reduction for buildings- Code of practice' {BS 8233)1.”
125 However the most appropriate document with regards the primary school development is Building Bulletin 93 Acoustic design in schools and the September 2012 update document. The noise assessment for the primary school should be updated accordingly based on the above documents.
Summary and Recommendations
126 It is recommended that a more extensive noise survey should be carried out to adequately characterise the noise climate at the location of the proposed residential development and the primary school.
127 If planning consent is to be given, then it is recommended that suitable conditions are included to ensure good internal acoustic conditions for residents and to ensure that the impacts of the existing noise environment are mitigated to an acceptable level and to ensure a reasonable or good standard of protection for the local environment due to noise arising from the development itself.
128 It is recommended that the planning conditions should cover the following items:
demolition and construction noise and vibration indoor ambient noise levels building services plant noise noise from commercial uses including car park and deliveries presence/absence & reasonably practical noise mitigation measures for balconies acoustic environment of gardens and other external amenity spaces Building Bulletin 93 assessment for the proposed primary school
Air quality assessment
129 London Plan policy 7.14 sets out that the development proposals should be at least air quality neutral and not lead to further deterioration of existing poor air quality. The applicant has included an air quality assessment within the Environmental Assessment as requested at the pre- application stage and this is welcome.
130 The GLA is currently updating the Best Practice Guidance on the control of dust and emissions from construction and demolition and this will be published in early 2013 as Supplementary Planning Guidance. All new relevant conditions/requirements included in this guidance document must be followed by the developer, particularly those relating to Non Road Mobile Machinery. Furthermore, the GLA is also publishing emissions standards for CHP plant (again at the start at 2013). These must be complied with. At the detailed design stage modelling of emissions and stack heights must be provided to LB Brent and the GLA.
S:\Planning Decisions\Cases\0859b\Stage 1 page 21 131 In addition to the energy statement comments the gas boilers must also meet the ultra low nox standard set out in the GLA's new Air Quality Neutral SPG (2013).
132 The applicant should provided information on whether they have done a new assessment of the nearby sensitive receptors now that the energy centre has moved and provide the data from their diffusion tube analysis.
Transport
Car parking
133 It is proposed that for the entire retail element there will be one shared car park accommodating a total of 360 spaces. This is compliant with the London Plan Policy 6.13 “Parking”. For the residential element however, it is proposed that there will be 183 car parking spaces or a ratio of 1 space per dwelling. As this is at the maximum level permissible within the London Plan standard and given the good level of passenger transport in the area along with the need to encourage more sustainable modes due to the already congested nature of the highway, TfL requests that a lower parking ratio be proposed to be in accordance with London Plan policy 6.13 ‘parking’.
134 In addition there will be 39 spaces for the school and nursery, intended for staff use. Similarly, TfL would expect to see a reduced provision. Tfl is concerned that no dedicated drop off or pick up facilities are being proposed on site. Given the likley level of retail parking, particularly in the afternoon, this should be addressed. Management of the overall parking provision and allocation would need to be included in the Car Parking Management Plan.
135 It is understood that it is the Council’s intention to seek a contribution from the developer towards investigating the possibility of introducing a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) in the area. This is fully supported in light of the above and potential risk of overspill. This should therefore be secured through the s106.
136 TfL also welcomes the provision of car club spaces within the site and understands that Electric Vehicle Charging Points (EVCP) will be provided for all uses in accordance to London Plan policy 6.13 “Parking” standards, which is welcomed. It is recommended that the monitoring of EVCP use be included in the Travel Plan monitoring and a trigger be agreed when passive charging points are required to be brought into operation. In addition, a car parking management plan will be submitted to the Council for approval, this is welcomed and TfL is content for this to be subject to a planning condition or obligation.
Vehicular access
137 The proposed vehicular accesses to the entire development are either from Grove Park or from Plaza Walk via Capital Way which are both Borough Roads. These accesses are acceptable to TfL subject to clarification that any operational constraints from the Asda unit would not have any impact on the use of Capital Way and Plaza Walk.
138 While the proposal to provide a separate pedestrian access to the school is welcomed from a road safety aspect, as this will ensure separation from the rest of the traffic accessing the site, TfL is however concerned by the lift option suggested in the transport assessment.
S:\Planning Decisions\Cases\0859b\Stage 1 page 22 Cycle parking
139 The proposed cycle parking spaces for residential, retail and the primary school comply with the London Plan Policy 6.9 “Cycling” standards which is welcomed. The provision of 5 residential vistor spaces is also supported and these will need to be located in an accessible and secure location. TfL would expect monitoring of the school cycle provision to be undertaken as part of the travel plan, further discussed below, and identify additional spaces if demand warrants it in the future. It is unclear from the revised Transport Assessment where the cycle access for the school will be. This should be addressed. Similarly to the pedestrian access, TfL would recommend that it be segregated from the rest of the traffic accessing the site. For the staff spaces, it is recommended that these facilities be located in an accessible, secure and well lit location with lockers and showers facilities provided.
Traffic modelling
140 The approach to trip generation (in particular residential Saturday trips), modal split (in particular bus residential trips), impacts on TLRN and traffic modelling presented in the revised Transport Assessment is not considered acceptable and therefore not in line with London Plan Policy 6.3 “Assessing the Impacts of Development on Transport Capacity”. Further work is required before a conclusion can be drawn on the acceptability of the proposals in light of the likely impact this development would have on the strategic or local highway, or on public transport, particularly local bus, network, and the potential level of mitigations required. TfL might therefore be seeking for s106 contributions towards junction and/or bus improvements.
141 Notwithstanding the comments made above on trip generation and given the nature and location of the proposals, it is however accepted that there will be sufficient spare capacity on the Northern Line underground services to accommodate the extra demand. TfL might however still be seeking for pooling contributions, including from this development, towards accessibility improvements at the station, as identified within the adopted Colindale Area Action Plan.
142 TfL would have expected that the nearest bus stops in each direction should have been assessed to ensure that they meet the Disabled Discrimination Act requirements and TfL’s accessible guidance. This assessment will need to be carried out and until results are known, TfL would request a capped sum of £20,000 per stop to be secured within the s106.
Pedestrian environment
143 The inclusion of the Pedestrian Environmental Review System (PERS) audit of the pedestrian facilities within the TA is welcomed. It is recommended that the improvements identified in it, particularly in relation to improved links for pedestrian to bus stops and Colindale Station be implemented by the developer and secured through s106 or s278 agreements. In addition, a contribution to Legible London will also be required. These will be required to comply with London Plan Policy 6.10.’ Walking’
Travel, Delivery Servicing and Construction Logistics Plans
144 Framework Travel Plans for the food store, for the residential units and for the school were submitted as part of the application, which is welcomed. Only the school travel plan has failed to pass the ATTrBuTE tool assessment. Revision to this plan is therefore required, including a statement on how the plan will be secured. To ensure conformity with London Plan Policy 6.3, the travel plans are expected to be secured, monitored, reviewed, and enforced through the s106 agreement.
S:\Planning Decisions\Cases\0859b\Stage 1 page 23 145 The inclusion of a Framework Delivery Servicing Plan (DSP) and a Construction Logistics Plan (CLP) within the TA is supported. However the DSP under its current form is not in line with London Plan Policy 6.14 “Freight” and will need to be resubmitted to the Borough and TfL for approval prior to commencement on site. The framework CLP is acceptable to TfL and should be subject to a planning condition/obligation.
146 In summary the main issues raised above need to be resolved before the application can be considered in line with the transport policies set out within the London Plan (2011). Community Infrastructure Levy
147 The Mayor has introduced a London-wide Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) to help implement the London Plan, particularly policies 6.5 and 8.3. The Mayoral CIL formally came into effect on 1 April 2012, and it will be paid on commencement of most new development in Greater London that was granted planning permission on or after that date. The Mayor's CIL will contribute towards the funding of Crossrail
148 The Mayor has arranged boroughs into three charging bands. The rate for Brent is £35/sq.m. The required CIL should be confirmed by the applicant and council once the components of the development or phase thereof have themselves been finalised. See the 2010 regulations: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2010/9780111492390/contents as amended by the 2011 regulations: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2011/987/made
149 London borough councils are also able to introduce CIL charges which are payable in addition to the Mayor’s CIL. Brent Council has yet to adopt a scheme has adopted a scheme. See the council’s website for more details. Local planning authority’s position
150 Brent Council has expressed concerns over the quantum of retail development and the justification presented by the applicant.
151 Barnet Council is formally objecting to the application. Legal considerations
152 Under the arrangements set out in Article 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor is required to provide the local planning authority with a statement setting out whether he considers that the application complies with the London Plan, and his reasons for taking that view. Unless notified otherwise by the Mayor, the Council must consult the Mayor again under Article 5 of the Order if it subsequently resolves to make a draft decision on the application, in order that the Mayor may decide whether to allow the draft decision to proceed unchanged, or direct the Council under Article 6 of the Order to refuse the application, or issue a direction under Article 7 of the Order that he is to act as the local planning authority for the purpose of determining the application and any connected application. There is no obligation at this present stage for the Mayor to indicate his intentions regarding a possible direction, and no such decision should be inferred from the Mayor’s statement and comments. Financial considerations
153 There are no financial considerations at this stage.
S:\Planning Decisions\Cases\0859b\Stage 1 page 24 Conclusion
154 The application complies with some of these policies but not with others and on balance does not comply with the London Plan; the reasons and the potential remedies to issues of non compliance are set out below: Principle of development: a mixed of use development of the site is acceptable, but issues relating to retail use require further resolution. Retail: As currently submitted the proposals raise strategic planning concerns regarding retail policy tests, sequential approach and potential harmful impacts on nearby town centres.
The applicant should engage pro-actively with Brent and Barnet Councils to resolve the issue in relation interpretation of the Lawful Development Certificate and the extant consent. This process should also include discussion exploring the assumption presented by the applicant that there is sufficient expenditure growth to accommodate two stores in the catchment without damaging existing and emerging capacity further investigation. If there is no agreement on this assumption, the applicant should agree to re-model the RIA to account for accommodating two retail stores in the retail catchment.
The applicant should further explore the relationship between the quantum of floorspace and the impact on the town centre hierarchy and provide further supporting evidence on the sequential test impact on vitality and viability of the existing retail hierarchy especially in relation to the sites identified in Barnet. Furthermore, in undertaking this process Barnet Council should provide further evidence on the deliverability of the town centre sites identified in Burnt Oak and Edgware.
Housing: The applicant viability assessment should be independently verified by Barnet Council and the housing mix should be secured in the S106 agreement. Urban design: As requested design quality of the outline phases of the development should be secured through the s106 agreement, particularly in relation to compliance with GLA housing space standards; further attention should be given to treatment of the car park pedestrian entrance onto Edgware Road; concerns raised by the noise assessment should be addressed and a solution adopting “winter gardens” should be considered to improve the acoustic quality of the apartments in high noise locations; and clarification should be provided over the inclusion of roof terraces on the apartment blocks. Access: The external arrangements, levels, and landscaping details require further attention and confirmation on the ‘future proofing’ of the retail parking should be provided. Particular attention should be given to comments made in relation to the staircase/ramp link to Edgware Road. The inclusion of 10% wheelchair accessible residential units in the outline application should be secured within the s106 agreement.
Energy: Based on the information provided, the proposed development does not appear to achieve any CO2 savings from energy efficiency alone compared to a 2010 Building Regulations compliant development. The applicant should model additional energy efficiency measures and commit to the development improving on the 2010 Building Regulations compliance level through energy efficiency alone. The applicant should further respond to comments in relation to district heating and renewable energy technologies.
Noise assessment: The applicant should fully respond to the comments made in relation to the Environment Statement Noise assessment with particular attention should be given to the concerns raised in relation to the thoroughness of the submitted assessment. The housing
S:\Planning Decisions\Cases\0859b\Stage 1 page 25 design balcony design form should be revised to use “winter gardens” in identifiable high noise locations. Air quality assessment: The applicant should fully respond to the comments made in relation to the Environment Statement air quality assessment. Transport: The approach to trip generation (in particular residential Saturday trips), modal split (in particular bus residential trips), impacts on TLRN and traffic modelling presented in the revised Transport Assessment is not considered acceptable and needs to be resubmitted; issues raised in relation to car parking, vehicular access, cycle parking, the pedestrian environment, Travel, Delivery Servicing and Construction Logistics Plans need to be resolved; the proposed conditions and s106 clauses need to be agreed before the application can be considered acceptable.
for further information, contact Planning Decisions Unit: Colin Wilson, Senior Manager - Planning Decisions 020 7983 4783 email [email protected] Justin Carr, Strategic Planning Manager (Development Decisions) 020 7983 4895 email [email protected] Jonathan Aubrey, Case Officer 020 7983 5823 email [email protected]
S:\Planning Decisions\Cases\0859b\Stage 1 page 26
S:\Planning Decisions\Cases\0859b\Stage 1 page 27